Context Lines: Bodies and Objects
After some consideration, it seems evident to me that the role of the context lines/psychic domains is to filter out elements of the environment that are not personally advantageous to ourselves.
Basically, I'm suggesting that we have functions by which to perceive bodies and fields themselves, not just their aspects, and that we have various degrees of responsiveness to the bodies and fields we see based on the criterion for these functions specific to each of us. (note that "object" is interchangable for "body")
I propose several such criterion
[*] whether a body/field is in motion or at rest.
- whether a body/field is "strong" and "well defined" or "weak" and "ill-defined".
- "strong" and "weak" used in these contexts are only differentiating factors; they do not imply a value judgement
- in motion = kinetic
- at rest = potential
One illustrative example would by the contrast between the neoconservative and consensarian/"communitarian" views of a nation. The neoconservative considers the nation to be a fixed field with clearly defined interests and relationships with other such fields. The consensarian view considers the nation as a community, a field of moving bodies that is forever ill-defined because there are always people coming into it and leaving it based on the relevance of the field to their own particular bodies. The neoconservative tries to create conditions for bodies that are well defined like itself, conditions that the bodies will always have at their disposal for their unchanging needs. The consensarian, in contrast, tries to create conditions that are maleable enough for bodies that are highly subject to environmental change (e.g., highly individualistic) to respond effectively whatever their internal variations.
Regarded politically, the field/body criterion combinations correspond to the following
- strong fields of potential -> neoconservative
- strong kinetic fields -> empirical
- weak kinetic fields -> consensarian
- weak fields of potential -> progressive
- strong bodies of potential -> theoconservative
- strong kinetic bodies -> libertarian
- weak kinetic bodies -> individualist
- weak bodies of potential -> liberal
Another way to define static/dynamic besides in motion/at rest, would be situation-specific/not-situation-specific.
Keep in mind that, for example, the location of an object that is at one moment in time motionless, is still dynamic information, regardless of the fact there is no motion going on regarding it. Dynamic = capable of motion.
Agreed. Good points.
Would you help me write the Wikisocion articles for supersocion theory?